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] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Date Mon, 01 Sep 2014 14:47:09 GMT

On 9/1/14 1:56 AM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>> My apologies for this going so long.  Basically, all we need now is a
>> ruling from legal-discuss as to whether the license for Kevin Atkinson
>> considered BSD or MIT or otherwise Apache-compatible.
>And that now been confirmed by legal so all is good with the release
>candidate. Unless anyone has any other objections?
Squiggly has been legally cleared for take-off!

Now that we know it gets to fly solo, I have one concern, then some stuff
to consider:

The concern:  The README points folks to openoffice.org and
http://hunspell.sourceforge.net.  The dictionaries at open office.org and
the dictionaries linked to at Hunspell's site seem to be LPGL versions for
English.  How about we tweak the README by replacing:

    You can obtain dictionary files from:


    You can obtain en_US and en_CA dictionaries under a BSD/MIT-like
license from:

    You can obtain other dictionary files from:


    But note that many of these dictionaries are under LPGL licenses.

Then if we do another RC, I'm wondering:

1) Are we sure it is ok to add the asdoc into the source package?  I would
have to add those files as exceptions during a RAT run to get clean
results.  I was expecting a separate zip in a doc folder on dist like we
do in the SDK.  After all, it isn't really source?
2) And if you do decide to tweak that, should the binary packages be in a
binaries folder on dist?
3) Could the README end with the same "thank you" we have in the SDK's
    Thanks for using Apache Flex.  Enjoy!

            The Apache Flex Project

Other than that, I'm good to go. LICENSE and NOTICE and RELEASE_NOTES look
good and the build completed.


View raw message