flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Date Thu, 03 Apr 2014 06:29:44 GMT
Justin,

To see if we're on the same page, my take away from the threads on legal-discuss and general@incubator
is that we must put a simple pointer into LICENSE.  Something like:

    "The following folders contain some source files under BSD: 
              FlexUnit4UIListener
              FlexUnit4CIListener"

And then we're good to go.  Did you reach the same conclusion?

-Alex


________________________________________
From: Justin Mclean [justin@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 12:44 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3

Hi,

> Alex:  I am not totally clear on this part, but Adobe still says Adobe has to sign a
software grant before those FlexUnit 1 files can get re-licensed under the AL.
Which has no effect on the current release, the 70 odd Adobe files out of the 2000+ files
have correct headers (now) and that is all that is require to comply with the BSD licences
in a source distribution. That's the first clause of the BSD license. If we were to remove
the headers then yes we would need to include the license.

> means that these files may not truly be part of Apache.
Remember modifications have been made to some of these files so they need to belong somewhere
and I doubt we could submit the changes back to Adobe and have them publish them.

BTW The Flex SDK does exactly the same thing with batik, velocity and xerces eg it has a modified
local versions. Only batik is mentioned in the NOTICE file (which is odd as it is Apache licensed
I believe) and none of them are mentioned in the LICENSE file

Thanks,
Justin
Mime
View raw message