incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David E Jones <jone...@undersunconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
Date Tue, 07 Nov 2006 06:47:00 GMT

On Nov 5, 2006, at 3:52 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:

> On 11/2/06, David E Jones <jonesde@undersunconsulting.com> wrote:
>>
>> The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus
>> internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are now
>> requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator
>> group and the Incubator PMC.
>
> +0 ATM (i have a couple of questions)
>
> important notes
> ------------------
>
> (please read but IMHO action is not required for this release)
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/applications/ 
> pos/dtd/jcl.dtd
> is CPL'd. note that under this draft
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html distribution would not be
> allowed. this is draft policy ATM. may need to either create a clean
> room implementation or raise issue on legal-discuss.
>
> queries
> ---------
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ 
> workflow/dtd/xpdl.dtd
> may not be under an open source compatible license (note that
> modification is not explicitly allowed but all rights are not
> restricted). standard DTDs are a difficult subject: many licenses used
> are not open source compatible. may need to ask on legal. i think that
> a clean room implementation of the DTD from the specification under
> the apache license (if that is possible) may be easier and quicker
> than untangling the legal issues. same goes for
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ 
> workflow/dtd/xpdl.xsd
> and http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ 
> shark/dtd/TC-1025_schema_10_xpdl.xsd
>
> would this be possible?

I read through the stuff on the 3party.html page you referenced and I  
think if this does become the case there is an easy way we can handle  
it. While it may be a little inconvenient we can remove these files  
and refer to them in locations publicly available via the internet.  
This way we can refer to them, but not include them.

Would that solve the problem?

> ofbiz.jar does not contain LICENSE and NOTICE in it's META-INF. so
> this jar cannot be distributed as a bare artifact. for example, this
> means that it cannot be distributed through the maven repository.
>
> do you intend to ban distribution by maven?

I'm not sure what this would/should look like, and honestly hadn't  
considered the distribution of these jars through a Maven repository/ 
server. The ofbiz.jar isn't really of any use on its own and is just  
an executable place holder that loads other stuff in OFBiz.

For distribution in Maven would every jar in OFBiz have to include  
the NOTICE and LICENSE files? We could certainly do this by just  
changing the ant scripts.

On a side note, is this getting in the way of the voting process for  
this Test Snapshot release? I've notice that no one else has really  
voted on it yet.

-David



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message