On Dec 18, 2009, at 3:23 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > On 19/12/2009, at 10:09 AM, David E Jones wrote: > >> >> On Dec 18, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Scott Gray wrote: >> >>> On 19/12/2009, at 9:44 AM, David E Jones wrote: >>>> I agree with this and tried to make this point early on in the discussion. >>>> We should be able to include these files just fine in source form, as long >>>> as they are not modified. >>> >>> You didn't try very hard, I responded to you and you didn't reply. >> >> I'm not into shouting into the wind any more. I used to be, but not any >> more. That's why I won't try to argue this one either. Eventually people >> will tire of fighting, and then something will happen. I'm perfectly willing >> to wait. > > I'm sending an email to legal-discuss now. The frustrating thing from my > point of view is that this was discussed and the code of concern was > subsequently removed from the branch but then added back in when BIRT came > into the trunk. An email to legal-discuss should have been sent over a month > ago and I don't think it was my responsibility to do so.
Yes, I agree with you there Scott. Hans or Adam should have researched and resolved legal questions before committing. Also, while I haven't looked at the code, I thought I saw somewhere that some of the EPL licensed JSP files were modified, and that would certainly not be allowed and should be removed (and some wants the files they should be clean room rewritten or something if changes are needed in order to avoid the copyright and licensing issues). -David
