You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Vikas Mayur <vi...@gmail.com> on 2008/05/22 08:27:17 UTC
Quesion about adding a modified BSD license
I have finished up a work for import/export vCard in sfa (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1649) using a jpim project
distributed under a BSD license.
This license can be reached through http://jpim.sourceforge.net/license.html
.
In above license I am confused with the statement "jpim is released under a
modified BSD style license.".
Is this modified license is different from the one that is already in OFBiz
LICENSE file.
Is there any need to add this license.
I think the jpim binary can be placed under applications/marketing/lib
instead of framework libs.
Please suggest.
Thank You,
Vikas
Re: Schemas in OfBiz and ARTS Compliance
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Jun 9, 2008, at 12:59 AM, Harmeet Bedi wrote:
> How stable are schemas in Ofbiz ?
At this point in time they are very stable. New entities and fields
are occasionally added, but very few other changes are done and the
basic entities have not changed for many years.
> Are there any plans to be be ARTS Compliant - http://www.nrf-
> arts.org/ ?
There are no plans for this that I am aware of, but it could certainly
be done, and probably without too much difficulty. This would take a
fair amount of time and a good understanding of the both the ARTS data
model and the OFBiz data model to do the gap analysis before trying to
go for certification.
> Has ARTS been a design influence ?
No, it has not been. The ARTS data model is available only to members
of the organization and while the licensing terms appear to be okay
(just looked at them briefly), I haven't looked into the details and
personally have never seen any of their data model documentation.
> We are a company based out of Canada and would be interested in
> contributing a few development resources(1-2 devs for some months)
> to move towards Arts compliance if there is common interest and it
> is feasible. We are currently trying to evaluate what exists in
> opensource and if we can make a positive contribution.
If this is something you would like to work on then that is really all
that matters. OFBiz is a community driven open source project that is
what it is because of community contributions. If you're interested in
joining the community then you are most welcome to get involved.
All you really need to do is start working on stuff. You initial
contributions should go through Jira issues (patches attached, etc)
and over time for those who have contributed substantially we invite
them to become committers to make it easier for them to continue
contributing.
If you need help from anyone, or need any resources that you and your
group are not able to provide, or for general interactions, please
speak up quickly and frequently on the mailing list to keep your
interactions with others open (this is a very important factor for
success... after all a community driven open source project is really
all about enabling collaboration).
-David
Schemas in OfBiz and ARTS Compliance
Posted by Harmeet Bedi <ha...@gmail.com>.
How stable are schemas in Ofbiz ?
Are there any plans to be be ARTS Compliant - http://www.nrf-arts.org/ ?
Has ARTS been a design influence ?
We are a company based out of Canada and would be interested in
contributing a few development resources(1-2 devs for some months) to
move towards Arts compliance if there is common interest and it is
feasible. We are currently trying to evaluate what exists in opensource
and if we can make a positive contribution.
thanks,
Harmeet
Re: Quesion about adding a modified BSD license
Posted by Vikas Mayur <vi...@gmail.com>.
Thanks David - I am still learning about the license issues and need your
help here again.
After reading the BSD License template in LICENSE file along with jpim
license, I think it will just go in the NOTICE file only.
jpim license header has following information:
Java PIM Library (jpim)
Copyright (c) 2001-2003 jpim development team.
All rights reserved.
which can be moved to NOTICE file as
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPIM NOTICE
This product includes software developed by jpim development team (
http://jpim.sourceforge.net/index.html)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I find two differences that I would also like your comments on:
1) In jpim it is >> Neither the name of the *author* nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
software without
specific prior written permission.
but in template it is >> Neither the name of the *<ORGANIZATION>
*2) In jpim it is >> IN NO EVENT SHALL *THE REGENTS* OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
but in template it is >> IN NO EVENT SHALL* THE COPYRIGHT OWNER* OR
CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
I think in #2 these both are same, so this would be acceptable.
Please let me know if there is any other changes required other than just
NOTICE file.
Thank You,
Vikas
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:32 PM, David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
wrote:
>
> Usually these modified BSD/MIT/X/etc licenses are just fine. We do have to
> review anything added or removed to make sure they don't require anything of
> the software user that the Apache 2.0 license doesn't require, considering
> that attribution and such which is fine (and what the NOTICE file is for).
>
> If it is different then yes, it has to be added to the LICENSE file (and if
> applicable corresponding entries in the NOTICE file).
>
> Thanks for taking a pass at this, and feel free to ask for help as there
> are various who have been through this many times.
>
> -David
>
>
>
> On May 22, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Vikas Mayur wrote:
>
> I have finished up a work for import/export vCard in sfa (
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1649) using a jpim project
>> distributed under a BSD license.
>> This license can be reached through
>> http://jpim.sourceforge.net/license.html
>> .
>>
>> In above license I am confused with the statement "jpim is released under
>> a
>> modified BSD style license.".
>> Is this modified license is different from the one that is already in
>> OFBiz
>> LICENSE file.
>> Is there any need to add this license.
>>
>> I think the jpim binary can be placed under applications/marketing/lib
>> instead of framework libs.
>>
>> Please suggest.
>>
>> Thank You,
>> Vikas
>>
>
>
Re: Quesion about adding a modified BSD license
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Usually these modified BSD/MIT/X/etc licenses are just fine. We do
have to review anything added or removed to make sure they don't
require anything of the software user that the Apache 2.0 license
doesn't require, considering that attribution and such which is fine
(and what the NOTICE file is for).
If it is different then yes, it has to be added to the LICENSE file
(and if applicable corresponding entries in the NOTICE file).
Thanks for taking a pass at this, and feel free to ask for help as
there are various who have been through this many times.
-David
On May 22, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Vikas Mayur wrote:
> I have finished up a work for import/export vCard in sfa (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1649) using a jpim project
> distributed under a BSD license.
> This license can be reached through http://jpim.sourceforge.net/license.html
> .
>
> In above license I am confused with the statement "jpim is released
> under a
> modified BSD style license.".
> Is this modified license is different from the one that is already
> in OFBiz
> LICENSE file.
> Is there any need to add this license.
>
> I think the jpim binary can be placed under applications/marketing/lib
> instead of framework libs.
>
> Please suggest.
>
> Thank You,
> Vikas