Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of cframpto@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.21 as permitted sender)
From: Carol Frampton <cframpto@adobe.com>
To: "flex-dev@incubator.apache.org" <flex-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 08:29:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Thread-Topic: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Thread-Index: Ac25DuF6pJvKbykhS3yy9od6Gkqh/A==
Message-ID: <CCB95E4B.1E32A%cframpto@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <CCB92EEE.47F4A%aharui@adobe.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

I made some changes before I read this email [1] so we might need another
pass on the changes.

Now that I've cleaned up the RAT report and excluded binaries which should
be excluded I see there is a binary in the kit which should not be there.
It is called temp.12.  I believe it can be generated so Om/Erik should
remove it from the kit.

Carol

[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=3D1405005&view=3Drev

On 11/2/12 11 :03AM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>On 11/2/12 7:46 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cframpto@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>=20
>> On 11/2/12 10 :28AM, "Carol Frampton" <cframpto@adobe.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> I think there were a few issues raised and we need to know if any of
>>>them
>>> are "release blockers"
>>>=20
>>> 1.  incorrect headers in MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as
>>> 2.  incorrect path to MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as in the LICENSE file
>>> 3.  incorrect license for the open_sans fonts in the LICENSE file
>>=20
>> This should have said open-sans rather than open_sans.
>>=20
>> It looks like the Apache License, version 2.0 is correct for the Open
>>Sans
>> fonts, at least according to this [1].
>> The copyright is Digitized data copyright =A9 2010-2011, Google
>>Corporation
>> but the license is Apache v2.
>>=20
>> I think that means we don't have to call the fonts out in the LICENSE
>>file
>> since the general Apache license applies to them.
>>=20
>That isn't clear to me so it would be great if Bertrand could decide.  If
>a
>third-party entity is Apache Licensed but is an external to Apache does it
>need mention in LICENSE.  And does the copyright go some place for
>binaries
>like a .TTF file?
>
>--=20
>Alex Harui
>Flex SDK Team
>Adobe Systems, Inc.
>http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>