Birt licensing problems need help, I cannot solve, scott can you help.

[hans_bakker]

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 [hidden email] and in
particular [hidden email] 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: [phone]

[hidden email]






--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates

[Scott Gray-2]

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 [hidden email] and in
> particular [hidden email] 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: [phone]
>
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>

[hans_bakker]

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 [hidden email] and in
> > particular [hidden email] 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: [phone]
> >
> > [hidden email]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
> >
>

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates

[Scott Gray-2]

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 [hidden email]  
>>> and in
>>> particular [hidden email] 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: [phone]
>>>
>>> [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>
>>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>

[Malin Nicolas]

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 [hidden email] and in
>>>> particular [hidden email] 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: [phone]
>>>>
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>
>

--
Nicolas MALIN
Consultant
Tél : [phone]
Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
-------
Société LibrenBerry
Tél : [phone]
Site : http://www.librenberry.net/

[hans_bakker]

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 [hidden email]  
> >>> and in
> >>> particular [hidden email] 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: [phone]
> >>>
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
> >>>
> >>
> > --
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
> >
>

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates

[Scott Gray-2]

Hans,

It is not that I won't help but that I can't, I am not a lawyer and am  
not going to pretend that I know more about this stuff than I actually  
do.  All I have done up till now is read the rules from the link I  
gave you and apply them to what you have in the branch.  There is no  
section in that document that describes how EPL projects can make  
exceptions for certain ASL projects and I have no idea whatsoever how  
to create such an exception.

And by the way I reviewed the birt integration because you asked me to  
and you then did your best to ignore my review.  Please do not turn  
around and tell me this is something I should take care just because I  
identified the issue for you.

But you know who can help you? Legal, yep that's why they have a  
mailing list, for legal questions just like this one.

Regards
Scott

On 1/12/2009, at 10:01 PM, 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 [hidden email]
>>>>> and in
>>>>> particular [hidden email] 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: [phone]
>>>>>
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>
>>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hans,

I don't think Scott, does not want to help you. He simply explained that this was out of his competences and he asked you to contact
the legal team. What is the problem with that ? Anyway at some point it seems that this will be needed...

Jacques

From: "Hans Bakker" <[hidden email]>

> 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 [hidden email]
>> >>> and in
>> >>> particular [hidden email] 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: [phone]
>> >>>
>> >>> [hidden email]
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>> >>>
>> >>
>> > --
>> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>> >
>>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>

[Michael Xu (xudong)]

hi Hans,

In worst case, if the legal issue cannot be solved, what's the next step?
Can you setup a new  project in sourceforge specifically for Birt
integration?

It seems quite a lot of people are looking forward to the integration.

BTW: Put the license issue aside, why you chose BIRT as report tool in
ofbiz? Any reason for Birt over jasper report and pentao?

--
Regards,
Michael Xu (xudong)
www.wizitsoft.com


On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Hans Bakker
<[hidden email]>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 [hidden email]
> > >>> and in
> > >>> particular [hidden email] 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: [phone]
> > >>>
> > >>> [hidden email]
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
> > >>>
> > >>
> > > --
> > > Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
> > >
> >
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

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 [hidden email]  
>>>>> and in
>>>>> particular [hidden email] 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: [phone]
>>>>>
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>
>>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Well said

+1

Jacques

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> 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 [hidden email]
>>>>>> and in
>>>>>> particular [hidden email] 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: [phone]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>
>
>

[Tim Ruppert]

+1 - please take ALL of this to legal so we do not start using  
something that then gets ripped out of the project.  It is what legal  
and frankly the ASF are for - to protect us and everyone using the  
software.

Cheers,
Ruppert

On Dec 1, 2009, at 4:25 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Well said
>
> +1
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> 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 [hidden email]
>>>>>>> and in
>>>>>>> particular [hidden email] 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: [phone]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>
>>
>
>

[Adam Heath-2]

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.

Specific approval just for ofbiz is not good enough.  Other people can
redistribute ofbiz, and they still need to be compliant.

[Scott Gray-2]

On 2/12/2009, at 6:31 AM, Adam Heath wrote:

> 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.
>
> Specific approval just for ofbiz is not good enough.  Other people can
> redistribute ofbiz, and they still need to be compliant.

This is what legal needs to answer, I am aware of other libraries in  
use in ASF projects where exceptions have been granted by the licensor  
so it is possible, I'm just not sure what form it needs to take so  
that it applies to downstream users as well.  I think it actually  
needs to be a relicensed with a modified version of the EPL that  
explicitly removes the weak copy-left requirement.  Personally I  
struggle to believe that birt would do this, especially for a released  
version.

Regards
Scott

[hans_bakker]

Hi Scott,
The files you have problems with, are in the Birt viewer we did remove
now because not really important for the report runtime.

Do not ask me to go to legal to explain the problem you reported,
English is my second language and I am not the person to discuss (US)
legal problems with.

I am a more pragmatic guy which simply ask the owner of a product for
approval if we can include it in OFBiz and our users can use it in their
installations according the Apache 2 license. Isn't the owner the only
person who can make us license problems? We are talking about the
runtime only so i still am pretty sure they give us that permission.

Anyway, please have a look at it again, if you can live with the current
branch to be included that would be nice.

Regards,
Hans


On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 08:51 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:

> On 2/12/2009, at 6:31 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Specific approval just for ofbiz is not good enough.  Other people can
> > redistribute ofbiz, and they still need to be compliant.
>
> This is what legal needs to answer, I am aware of other libraries in  
> use in ASF projects where exceptions have been granted by the licensor  
> so it is possible, I'm just not sure what form it needs to take so  
> that it applies to downstream users as well.  I think it actually  
> needs to be a relicensed with a modified version of the EPL that  
> explicitly removes the weak copy-left requirement.  Personally I  
> struggle to believe that birt would do this, especially for a released  
> version.
>
> Regards
> Scott

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates

[Scott Gray-2]

On 2/12/2009, at 7:55 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> The files you have problems with, are in the Birt viewer we did remove
> now because not really important for the report runtime.
>
> Do not ask me to go to legal to explain the problem you reported,
> English is my second language and I am not the person to discuss (US)
> legal problems with.

I don't really care if you go to legal or not, but you won't be able  
to commit your work to the trunk until the issue is resolved.  I'm  
sorry if me pointing out the licensing issues has bothered you, but at  
the end of the day they are real issues that would have caused our  
project real problems.  But the fact that I took the time to review  
the code (at your request) and point out these problems does not make  
them my problems.  We all have little projects that are important to  
us and birt is on your list, it is not on mine and I think I've  
already spent enough time on it between the review and writing all of  
these unnecessary emails.

> I am a more pragmatic guy which simply ask the owner of a product for
> approval if we can include it in OFBiz and our users can use it in  
> their
> installations according the Apache 2 license. Isn't the owner the only
> person who can make us license problems? We are talking about the
> runtime only so i still am pretty sure they give us that permission.

That sounds great, I wish you the best of luck with this approach.

> Anyway, please have a look at it again, if you can live with the  
> current
> branch to be included that would be nice.

Please don't act surprised by this because it will be the 3rd time  
I've mentioned it.
These files are modified clones of EPL licensed files from the birt  
source code:
BirtViewerAttributeBean.java
BirtEngineServlet.java
BirtViewerServlet.java
You cannot copy EPL licensed code, modify it and then stick the ASL  
license on it.
As mentioned a few times now you need to remove these files and  
replace them with clean code that hasn't been derived from EPL source  
code.

>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>
> On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 08:51 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 2/12/2009, at 6:31 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Specific approval just for ofbiz is not good enough.  Other people  
>>> can
>>> redistribute ofbiz, and they still need to be compliant.
>>
>> This is what legal needs to answer, I am aware of other libraries in
>> use in ASF projects where exceptions have been granted by the  
>> licensor
>> so it is possible, I'm just not sure what form it needs to take so
>> that it applies to downstream users as well.  I think it actually
>> needs to be a relicensed with a modified version of the EPL that
>> explicitly removes the weak copy-left requirement.  Personally I
>> struggle to believe that birt would do this, especially for a  
>> released
>> version.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>

[Tim Ruppert]

Hans, knowing that these are problematic means that they must be taken  
to legal before anyone with a vote will allow them into the trunk.  So  
if this is a priority for you - and for others as you've seen from the  
response - please take it to legal.  I'm sure they're not going to  
have a problem with English being a second language since the ASF is a  
worldwide company.

Don't put stuff into the repository that you are not 100% sure passes  
legal's guidelines - this is your responsibility as a committer and  
needs to be taken seriously.

Cheers,
Ruppert

On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:50 AM, Scott Gray wrote:

> On 2/12/2009, at 7:55 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> Hi Scott,
>> The files you have problems with, are in the Birt viewer we did  
>> remove
>> now because not really important for the report runtime.
>>
>> Do not ask me to go to legal to explain the problem you reported,
>> English is my second language and I am not the person to discuss (US)
>> legal problems with.
>
> I don't really care if you go to legal or not, but you won't be able  
> to commit your work to the trunk until the issue is resolved.  I'm  
> sorry if me pointing out the licensing issues has bothered you, but  
> at the end of the day they are real issues that would have caused  
> our project real problems.  But the fact that I took the time to  
> review the code (at your request) and point out these problems does  
> not make them my problems.  We all have little projects that are  
> important to us and birt is on your list, it is not on mine and I  
> think I've already spent enough time on it between the review and  
> writing all of these unnecessary emails.
>
>> I am a more pragmatic guy which simply ask the owner of a product for
>> approval if we can include it in OFBiz and our users can use it in  
>> their
>> installations according the Apache 2 license. Isn't the owner the  
>> only
>> person who can make us license problems? We are talking about the
>> runtime only so i still am pretty sure they give us that permission.
>
> That sounds great, I wish you the best of luck with this approach.
>
>> Anyway, please have a look at it again, if you can live with the  
>> current
>> branch to be included that would be nice.
>
> Please don't act surprised by this because it will be the 3rd time  
> I've mentioned it.
> These files are modified clones of EPL licensed files from the birt  
> source code:
> BirtViewerAttributeBean.java
> BirtEngineServlet.java
> BirtViewerServlet.java
> You cannot copy EPL licensed code, modify it and then stick the ASL  
> license on it.
> As mentioned a few times now you need to remove these files and  
> replace them with clean code that hasn't been derived from EPL  
> source code.
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 08:51 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2009, at 6:31 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Specific approval just for ofbiz is not good enough.  Other  
>>>> people can
>>>> redistribute ofbiz, and they still need to be compliant.
>>>
>>> This is what legal needs to answer, I am aware of other libraries in
>>> use in ASF projects where exceptions have been granted by the  
>>> licensor
>>> so it is possible, I'm just not sure what form it needs to take so
>>> that it applies to downstream users as well.  I think it actually
>>> needs to be a relicensed with a modified version of the EPL that
>>> explicitly removes the weak copy-left requirement.  Personally I
>>> struggle to believe that birt would do this, especially for a  
>>> released
>>> version.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>> --
>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>
>