incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
Date Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:40:55 GMT
On 11/7/06, David E Jones <> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2006, at 3:52 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > On 11/2/06, David E Jones <> 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)

i'm now (reluctantly) +1 (see comments below)


> >
> > 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
> >
> > workflow/dtd/xpdl.xsd
> > and
> > 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?


IMHO it's worth considering creating clean room implementations in the
medium term (or lobbying for an open source compatible license)

> > 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.

yes - every apache jar that is released by itself would need NOTICE
and LICENSE files

> On a side note, is this getting in the way of the voting process for
> this Test Snapshot release?


AFAIC the substantive issue is the xsd's without open source licenses
but IMHO this is a marginal case. the license is missing from the

apache has traditionally issued aggregate binary releases containing
redistributable binary components which are not open source but does
not include source under restrictive licenses. xsd's are a difficult
corner case. much better to create clean room implementations.

since this is an incubator release and there seems no substantial
legal risk i'm going to +1 but i trust that the mentors will see that
this issue is resolved before graduation.

> I've notice that no one else has really
> voted on it yet.

that's not unusual. unfortunately, checking releases takes IPMC energy
which is in limited supply. i run RAT (which is quicker) but there's
still quite a deal of time talen by offering explanations.

mentors really need to cast their votes

- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message