On Nov 5, 2006, at 3:52 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 11/2/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
