Drop plugins/birt/webapp/birt/webcontent ?

[Jacques Le Roux]

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

[Pierre Smits]

+1 on dropping unused (and/or deprecated code).

See also:

   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5303

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

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

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

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> 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
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> 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

[Scott Gray-3]

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 <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> 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
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Good point Scott, we discussed it indeed https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@...: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 <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>> [hidden email]> 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
>>

[taher]

Wow, so reading these threads tells me that Scott had concerns which hit
the nail right on the head with respect to licensing but the files were
committed anyway. Unfortunate!

+1 for removing them.

On Mar 25, 2017 10:03 AM, "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Good point Scott, we discussed it indeed https://lists.apache.org/list.
> html?[hidden email]: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 <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>> [hidden email]> 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
>>>
>>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

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/resolved.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@...: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 <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>> [hidden email]> 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
>>>
>
>

[Pierre Smits]

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 <
[hidden email]> 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?[hidden email]: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 <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>> [hidden email]> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> 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?
>

When it comes with license concerns, when if doubt my preference is to stay
on the safer side: in this case I would drop the folder.

Anyway, if you (or anyone else) is going to ask to legal, I would recommend
to ask a very precise question like:
"can these folder [URL to the external original Birt repo or distro],
licensed under [URL to the external original Birt license page] be included
in source form, without modifications, in an Apache (source) release? If
the answer is yes, are there any legal requirements (i.e. additions to
LICENSE and/or NOTICE file)?"

Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks for the help Jacopo. I'll ask legal (create a Jira) and will report here

Jacques


Le 27/03/2017 à 09:54, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> 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?
>>
> When it comes with license concerns, when if doubt my preference is to stay
> on the safer side: in this case I would drop the folder.
>
> Anyway, if you (or anyone else) is going to ask to legal, I would recommend
> to ask a very precise question like:
> "can these folder [URL to the external original Birt repo or distro],
> licensed under [URL to the external original Birt license page] be included
> in source form, without modifications, in an Apache (source) release? If
> the answer is yes, are there any legal requirements (i.e. additions to
> LICENSE and/or NOTICE file)?"
>
> Jacopo
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Done at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-296

Jacques


Le 27/03/2017 à 11:57, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

> Thanks for the help Jacopo. I'll ask legal (create a Jira) and will report here
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 27/03/2017 à 09:54, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>> [hidden email]> 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?
>>>
>> When it comes with license concerns, when if doubt my preference is to stay
>> on the safer side: in this case I would drop the folder.
>>
>> Anyway, if you (or anyone else) is going to ask to legal, I would recommend
>> to ask a very precise question like:
>> "can these folder [URL to the external original Birt repo or distro],
>> licensed under [URL to the external original Birt license page] be included
>> in source form, without modifications, in an Apache (source) release? If
>> the answer is yes, are there any legal requirements (i.e. additions to
>> LICENSE and/or NOTICE file)?"
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi All,

Finally we need to remove these files (see LEGAL-296), hence to remove the wiki page. I don't think the functionality will be a big miss.

Comments before I drop both?

Jacques


Le 27/03/2017 à 13:43, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

> Done at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-296
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 27/03/2017 à 11:57, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>> Thanks for the help Jacopo. I'll ask legal (create a Jira) and will report here
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> Le 27/03/2017 à 09:54, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>> [hidden email]> 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?
>>>>
>>> When it comes with license concerns, when if doubt my preference is to stay
>>> on the safer side: in this case I would drop the folder.
>>>
>>> Anyway, if you (or anyone else) is going to ask to legal, I would recommend
>>> to ask a very precise question like:
>>> "can these folder [URL to the external original Birt repo or distro],
>>> licensed under [URL to the external original Birt license page] be included
>>> in source form, without modifications, in an Apache (source) release? If
>>> the answer is yes, are there any legal requirements (i.e. additions to
>>> LICENSE and/or NOTICE file)?"
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Done

Jacques


Le 03/04/2017 à 06:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

> Hi All,
>
> Finally we need to remove these files (see LEGAL-296), hence to remove the wiki page. I don't think the functionality will be a big miss.
>
> Comments before I drop both?
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 27/03/2017 à 13:43, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>> Done at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-296
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> Le 27/03/2017 à 11:57, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>> Thanks for the help Jacopo. I'll ask legal (create a Jira) and will report here
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 27/03/2017 à 09:54, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>> [hidden email]> 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?
>>>>>
>>>> When it comes with license concerns, when if doubt my preference is to stay
>>>> on the safer side: in this case I would drop the folder.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, if you (or anyone else) is going to ask to legal, I would recommend
>>>> to ask a very precise question like:
>>>> "can these folder [URL to the external original Birt repo or distro],
>>>> licensed under [URL to the external original Birt license page] be included
>>>> in source form, without modifications, in an Apache (source) release? If
>>>> the answer is yes, are there any legal requirements (i.e. additions to
>>>> LICENSE and/or NOTICE file)?"
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>