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: AW: License Stuff
Date Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:07:23 GMT
Well it seems the is nothing like that:
http://nexus.cestpasdur.com/nexus/content/repositories/sonatype-forge/com/adobe/flex/framework/playerglobal/4.6.b.23201/

As you can see, it's as easy as accessing the URL to download the playerglobal.

Chris

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2013 21:31
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: License Stuff



On 10/29/13 1:13 PM, "christofer.dutz@c-ware.de"
<christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:

>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.
The last time I talked with Adobe Legal, the distribution agreement is not enough.  Folks
must be made aware of the terms and conditions before downloading.  So, while Sonatype had
the rights to allow folks to download copies of Adobe software from Sonatype servers, someday,
if Adobe Legal ever did a review, they would have been required to have some sort of way of
ensuring that folks understood the licensing before allowing the download.

Does Sonatype have any such facility for doing that? Registered users with logins?
>
>Chris
>
>-----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?
>
>-Alex
>
>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.
>>
>>-Alex
>>
>


Mime
View raw message