flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "christofer.dutz@c-ware.de" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
Subject AW: License Stuff
Date Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:13:33 GMT
But if the deal Velo and Sonatype had with Adobe was enough, I guess this would be all we need
and we wouldn't have the hassle of having to implement any sort of manual deployment wrapper
as I would really hate having to implement any sort if "interactive" maven build.


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2013 21:08
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: License Stuff

We did not pursue that approach because Apache supposedly only distributes source code with
open licenses.  Even if there was such an agreement, the binary packages still could not contain
Adobe stuff because a binary package can only contain the compiled results of a source package.

I may still set up a simple "business" to distribute the same package as Adobe 4.6 but a license
acceptance will still be required which AFAIK still poses a problem for Maven.

Maybe we should add some license handling to Maven itself?


On 10/29/13 12:53 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoublefx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Not sure if it has been already asked but can't Apache  / Apache Flex 
>sign a Distribution agreement ?
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com] Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre 
>2013 17:57 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: License Stuff
>On 10/29/13 7:16 AM, "christofer.dutz@c-ware.de"
><christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
>>Hi Guys,
>>I am currently talking to Brian Fox from Sonatype. He told me that 
>>Sonatype signed a Distribution Agreement with Adobe had been signed in 
>>2008, but this has expired 2009, but it seems they are willing to 
>>re-sign such an Agreement.
>>For which parts would we Need an Agreement from Adobe? As far as I 
>>know this would be the Flach Playerglobal and for Air the Airglobal 
>>and related SWCs/RSLs is there anything else? Can a Distribution 
>>Agreement be signed for all of the missing parts?
>I believe you need the entire AIR SDK.  Well, maybe not the runtimes, 
>but the packagers if you are going to support mobile output.
>>If we manage to sort this out, I guess There should be nothing else 
>>preventing us from Publishing Flex SDKs without having to implement 
>>any hacks. I guess this would help a lot of Flex users quite a lot.
>In my last conversation with Adobe Legal, they still want folks to 
>accept the license agreement once per company.  The distribution 
>agreement only gives you the right to distribute, but folks still need 
>to be aware that not every file is Apache-licensed.

View raw message