Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of webdoublefx@hotmail.com
 designates 157.55.2.90 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <DUB404-EAS351C9E80B9EFD7724E83ABCB4090@phx.gbl>
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_THOMAS?= <webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
To: <dev@flex.apache.org>
References: <DUB406-EAS848A84EEE62D06663AC472B4090@phx.gbl>
 <CE9562CF.102AF%aharui@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE9562CF.102AF%aharui@adobe.com>
Subject: RE: License Stuff
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:23:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQABAgMElIDPC4oDHnNzixOY57A2VgBgz7JlANBDToYATFbwnJ2b1yiw
Content-Language: fr

Thanks for reminding me, it was completely out of my head.

> 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.

The acceptance can be done thru the installer which in return gives a
credential to a Maven repo we could manage, maybe my limited company =
could
manage to ask an Adobe Distribution License, what's the requirements ?

> Maybe we should add some license handling to Maven itself?

I don't think it is possible to have an interactive process.

-Fred

-----Message d'origine-----
De=A0: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]=20
Envoy=E9=A0: mardi 29 octobre 2013 21:08
=C0=A0: dev@flex.apache.org
Objet=A0: 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, "Fr=E9d=E9ric THOMAS" <webdoublefx@hotmail.com> =
wrote:

>Not sure if it has been already asked but can't Apache  / Apache Flex=20
>sign a Distribution agreement ?
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com] Envoy=E9 : mardi 29 octobre=20
>2013 17:57 =C0 : 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=20
>>Sonatype signed a Distribution Agreement with Adobe had been signed in =

>>2008, but this has expired 2009, but it seems they are willing to=20
>>re-sign such an Agreement.
>>
>>For which parts would we Need an Agreement from Adobe? As far as I=20
>>know this would be the Flach Playerglobal and for Air the Airglobal=20
>>and related SWCs/RSLs is there anything else? Can a Distribution=20
>>Agreement be signed for all of the missing parts?
>I believe you need the entire AIR SDK.  Well, maybe not the runtimes,=20
>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=20
>>preventing us from Publishing Flex SDKs without having to implement=20
>>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=20
>accept the license agreement once per company.  The distribution=20
>agreement only gives you the right to distribute, but folks still need=20
>to be aware that not every file is Apache-licensed.
>
>-Alex
>