Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
 designates 157.55.234.102 as permitted sender)
From: Christofer Dutz <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
To: "dev@flex.apache.org" <dev@flex.apache.org>
Subject: AW: AW: AW: Donation of Flexmojos
Thread-Topic: AW: AW: Donation of Flexmojos
Thread-Index: AQHP6HEBu+vRQ75DCUyvSa8AC+Y/85wxYagP
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:04:42 +0000
Message-ID: <1413392677936.74358@c-ware.de>
References: 
 <CAKWVykXUHjL+g4AMq9qDeF8bbm8bWPypDTKx9umampbzeV3YBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CD27ED8A.4C424%aharui@adobe.com>,<CAEuMg9Ad3u8UH1_ZFYXvgotPCL05CSdR4wRN=puzcVfmVRGJgg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEuMg9Ad3u8UH1_ZFYXvgotPCL05CSdR4wRN=puzcVfmVRGJgg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

We had discussed possibilities of how this could be achieved. Unfortunately=
 Velo never requested users to officially sign an ICLA. So they are still i=
n possetion of the rights to that code. In order to donate this, they would=
 all have to agree. This is an enormous amount of people I would have to as=
k. So we dropped this idea. We were thinking about creating a new plugin he=
re at apache. Unfortunately I have so much stuff to do here that I can't fi=
nd any time to work on that ... the skeleton is there though.=0A=
=0A=
But the GPL of Flexmojos shouldn't have any influence on what you build wit=
h Flexmojos. As far as I know, it would only be problematic, if you bundled=
 Flexmojos itself with your product.=0A=
=0A=
Chris=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
________________________________________=0A=
Von: Gautam Pandey <gkptechi@gmail.com>=0A=
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. Oktober 2014 14:09=0A=
An: dev@flex.apache.org=0A=
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Donation of Flexmojos=0A=
=0A=
Is there any progress in donating flexmojos to Apache? I am stuck because=
=0A=
of GPL and I cannot go forward and use 6.0.1 as my company is not allowing=
=0A=
to use GPL licensed software.=0A=
=0A=
Thanks & Regards=0A=
Gautam Pandey=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:=0A=
=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=
> On 1/25/13 7:12 AM, "Greg Reddin" <gredbug@gmail.com> wrote:=0A=
>=0A=
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:35 AM, christofer.dutz@c-ware.de <=0A=
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:=0A=
> >=0A=
> >> So ... does this have any impact on the plans to donate? Is it now=0A=
> harder=0A=
> >> to donate or does it make stuff even easier?=0A=
> >>=0A=
> >=0A=
> > To my knowledge the current licensing strategy of the product has no=0A=
> > bearing on its donation. My assumption is that, by donating it, Velo=0A=
> > asserts that he has intellectual property rights to the software, and=
=0A=
> he's=0A=
> > passing those rights on to Apache. Apache can then relicense the softwa=
re=0A=
> > if/when we get ready to release it.=0A=
> But I would say it means that a donation is now required.  My idea of=0A=
> having=0A=
> you just borrow code from its current repository is now void because you=
=0A=
> cannot borrow GPL code.=0A=
>=0A=
> Also, there could be some trickiness in that Velo has to be certain that =
he=0A=
> has the right to re-license the code as Apache license.  Whether he does=
=0A=
> that before or after donation may not matter, but effectively, it is bein=
g=0A=
> re-licensed.  I don't know the GPL terms and what contributor agreement h=
e=0A=
> had, but that might dictate whether he has the authority to re-license.=
=0A=
>=0A=
> Finally, do we really have to have this code?  How many of us committers=
=0A=
> will actually make changes to and release from this code base?  If it jus=
t=0A=
> Chris, then I would argue we don't really have a community around it.  I =
am=0A=
> not motivated to work on what has been described as a old monolithic beas=
t,=0A=
> but I would be more willing to help out with the new code for the Apache=
=0A=
> Flex releases.=0A=
>=0A=
> So, the way I see it, Velo has to re-license to Apache one way or another=
=0A=
> or=0A=
> we have to find a way not to copy significant portions of that code.=0A=
>=0A=
> --=0A=
> Alex Harui=0A=
> Flex SDK Team=0A=
> Adobe Systems, Inc.=0A=
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=