You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com> on 2017/04/03 04:56:27 UTC
Re: Drop plugins/birt/webapp/birt/webcontent ?
Hi All,
Finally we need to remove these files (see LEGAL-296), hence to remove the wiki page. I don't think the functionality will be a big miss.
Comments before I drop both?
Jacques
Le 27/03/2017 � 13:43, Jacques Le Roux a �crit :
> Done at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-296
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 27/03/2017 � 11:57, Jacques Le Roux a �crit :
>> Thanks for the help Jacopo. I'll ask legal (create a Jira) and will report here
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> Le 27/03/2017 � 09:54, Jacopo Cappellato a �crit :
>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>> jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK I was wrong, this is used as explained at
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Using+BIRT+with+OFBiz
>>>>
>>>> Now the question is: is it sufficient to keep it? Because we have a kinda
>>>> license issue.
>>>>
>>>> But if you carefully read http://www.apache.org/legal/re
>>>> solved.html#category-b there is a last point which was then discussed by
>>>> David and Scott.
>>>>
>>>> <<For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product
>>>> at runtime in source form, and for which that source is unmodified and
>>>> unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being specified by a
>>>> standard), inclusion of appropriately labeled source is also permitted. An
>>>> example of this is the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd, whose inclusion is mandated
>>>> by the JSR 127: JavaServer Faces specification>>
>>>>
>>>> David suggested it was OK[1], Scott did not agree[2]. Now that I have a
>>>> look at it, it's 160 files, but only 541 523 bytes, and I don't see why
>>>> people would change them.
>>>>
>>>> So I tend to think that if we appropriately label we can keep it. We could
>>>> ask legal if in doubt...
>>>>
>>>> Opinions?
>>>>
>>> When it comes with license concerns, when if doubt my preference is to stay
>>> on the safer side: in this case I would drop the folder.
>>>
>>> Anyway, if you (or anyone else) is going to ask to legal, I would recommend
>>> to ask a very precise question like:
>>> "can these folder [URL to the external original Birt repo or distro],
>>> licensed under [URL to the external original Birt license page] be included
>>> in source form, without modifications, in an Apache (source) release? If
>>> the answer is yes, are there any legal requirements (i.e. additions to
>>> LICENSE and/or NOTICE file)?"
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Drop plugins/birt/webapp/birt/webcontent ?
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Done
Jacques
Le 03/04/2017 � 06:56, Jacques Le Roux a �crit :
> Hi All,
>
> Finally we need to remove these files (see LEGAL-296), hence to remove the wiki page. I don't think the functionality will be a big miss.
>
> Comments before I drop both?
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 27/03/2017 � 13:43, Jacques Le Roux a �crit :
>> Done at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-296
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> Le 27/03/2017 � 11:57, Jacques Le Roux a �crit :
>>> Thanks for the help Jacopo. I'll ask legal (create a Jira) and will report here
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 27/03/2017 � 09:54, Jacopo Cappellato a �crit :
>>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>> jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK I was wrong, this is used as explained at
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Using+BIRT+with+OFBiz
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the question is: is it sufficient to keep it? Because we have a kinda
>>>>> license issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if you carefully read http://www.apache.org/legal/re
>>>>> solved.html#category-b there is a last point which was then discussed by
>>>>> David and Scott.
>>>>>
>>>>> <<For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product
>>>>> at runtime in source form, and for which that source is unmodified and
>>>>> unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being specified by a
>>>>> standard), inclusion of appropriately labeled source is also permitted. An
>>>>> example of this is the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd, whose inclusion is mandated
>>>>> by the JSR 127: JavaServer Faces specification>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David suggested it was OK[1], Scott did not agree[2]. Now that I have a
>>>>> look at it, it's 160 files, but only 541 523 bytes, and I don't see why
>>>>> people would change them.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I tend to think that if we appropriately label we can keep it. We could
>>>>> ask legal if in doubt...
>>>>>
>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>
>>>> When it comes with license concerns, when if doubt my preference is to stay
>>>> on the safer side: in this case I would drop the folder.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, if you (or anyone else) is going to ask to legal, I would recommend
>>>> to ask a very precise question like:
>>>> "can these folder [URL to the external original Birt repo or distro],
>>>> licensed under [URL to the external original Birt license page] be included
>>>> in source form, without modifications, in an Apache (source) release? If
>>>> the answer is yes, are there any legal requirements (i.e. additions to
>>>> LICENSE and/or NOTICE file)?"
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>