community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex SDK 4.14.0 RC1
Date Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:52:51 GMT
Hi Justin,

It seems like you have sent the email to the wrong mailing list.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sorry -1 binding due to LICENSE/NOTICE issues,  locale issue and the RSL
> issue
>
> I checked (on OSX):
> - md5 and signatures correct
> - LICENSE and NOTICE have issues ( see below)
> - No unexpected binaries in source
> - All source files have Apache headers
> - Can compile from source
> - Can create a usable SDK
> - Simple desktop, mobile and browser apps work
> - Simple desktop RSL app fails to work with error:
> Error #2032: Stream Error. URL: file:///Users/justinmclean/Documents/Adobe
> Flash Builder 4.6/SimpleRSLTest/bin-debug/textLayout_20150121.swf
> Looks like the file is question is named "textLayout_4.14.0.20150121.swf"
> not the expected "textLayout_20150121.swf".
>
> I'm yet to test any of the new mobile skins, flat theme or new component.
>
> The source LICENSE file is missing a few things I think:
>
> Noticed this (and variations of):
> This is SVG, a language for describing two-dimensional graphics in XML.
>      Copyright 2001, 2002 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved.
>
> In these files:
>
> modules/thirdparty/batik/resources/org/apache/flex/forks/batik/dom/svg/resources/*.mod
>
> modules/thirdparty/batik/resources/org/apache/flex/forks/batik/dom/svg/resources/*.dtd
>
> And this "Copyright (c) 1999 World Wide Web Consortium" in:
> modules/thirdparty/batik/sources/org/w3c/css/sac/LexicalUnit.java
>
> We have batik mentioned in NOTICE but I'm not sure that's correct (unless
> license headers were also changed). Shouldn't we have the license pointers
> in LICENSE instead as W3C licenses are permissive license? [1] The W3C
> software and document licenses [2][3] don't require any thing added to
> NOTICE  as far as I can tell (not 100% sure) but do require a copy and/or
> link to their LICENSE which we are not doing in the source package.
>
> Other stuff:
> - During the build it prompts for OSMF which it doesn't need to.
> - " ant -f installer.xml" doesn't respect locale and forces en_US
> - The REAMDE section on dependancies needs a little fixing
> - Missing CONTRIBUTORS file
> - Suggest LICENSE.base, LICENSE.bin, NOTICE.asc, NOTICE.base, NOTICE.bin
> either be moved out of the base directory so there or not included in the
> source release no confusion re which license actually applies
> - Missing windows version of adl and adt from bin directory this means the
> SDK is not portable. This may be an issue to some people as discussed
> previously on the list.
> - Utils display wrong copyright year eg compc displays "Copyright 2014 The
> Apache Software Foundation."
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1 http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> 2. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231
> 3.
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231.html
>
>
>

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