ofbiz-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Drop plugins/birt/webapp/birt/webcontent ?
Date Mon, 27 Mar 2017 07:32:56 GMT
Getting the insight of the Apache Legal officers is always smart when in
doubt.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

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?
>
> Jacques
>
> [1] https://s.apache.org/95mu
>
> [2] https://s.apache.org/ECDF
>
>
>
>
> Le 25/03/2017 à 08:02, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>
>> Good point Scott, we discussed it indeed https://lists.apache.org/list.
>> html?dev@ofbiz.apache.org:gte=7y:add%20BIRT%20branch%20to%20trunk.
>>
>> I had not the guts to deep into all details, but yes you and others
>> expressed concerns then: https://s.apache.org/GyKu
>>
>> The most important point here is more that AFAIK these files are not even
>> needed!
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> Le 24/03/2017 à 21:04, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>
>>> I'm curious as to how it was ever added, when the birt component was
>>> first
>>> introduced I'm pretty sure we agreed to not include this part of it
>>> because
>>> of licensing concerns.
>>>
>>> On 25 March 2017 at 02:34, Jacopo Cappellato <
>>> jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>> jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> plugins/birt/webapp/birt/webcontent is a part of the birt component
>>>>> but
>>>>> AFAIK is not used by OFBiz.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also Birt is licensed under EPL, it's category B
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b <
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b>, so files should
>>>>>
>>>> be
>>>>
>>>>> only provided in object/binary form
>>>>>
>>>>> So I think we need to remove this code. I was able to generate a PDF
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>> XLS report after removing this part, so I think it's OK w/o it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also tried the new Birt feature (Flexible Reports) and it works with
>>>>>
>>>> any
>>>>
>>>>> kind of format provided.
>>>>> I begin the documentation of this new part and will let you know when
>>>>>
>>>> it's
>>>>
>>>>> done...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> If the code is not used then I cast a great +1 for its removal.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message